CDZ Are Liberals Their Own Worst Enemy?

[flacaltenn]

Neither side is in favor of corporate welfare. At least not their constituents. You have to cut the SIZE and SCOPE of government so that they don't have the power to GIVE these subsidies. And that's just not a leftist ambition --- is it? Which comes first? the honey or the flies?

It's a politician thing. They TOOK the power to do those things. And liberals/leftist/socialist see NO LIMITS to what the government SHOULD be able to do..

As an encapsulation of the theme you put forth, you lost me with the "flies and honey" bit. I think there is definitely a causal relationship to be found in connection with corporate welfare (and its recipients), voters and elected officials. There is no such relationship between flies and honey; one exists independently of the other. Moreover, I don't have the first idea of whom you see as the fly or the honey, to say nothing of what role you see the third group filling.

Please clarify. I do genuinely want to understand the point you are trying to communicate. I don't know if I will or won't agree with it, but I can't know that until I understand it.

I tend to take large leaps. What I was trying to short-circuit with the flies/honey biz is the argument over whether the solution to ending corporate welfare was to remove the "honey" === equals to the power to give favors and pick or winners/losers on the part of the gov ---- OR the "flies" === which is a metaphor for the industry lobbying and "cash influence" that comes with that. Leftist/socialist/Libs never recognize that the flies would go elsewhere if there wasn't honey spilt out regularly on Capitol Hill..

Regardless -- the larger problem is that leftists know no limits to the powers that they are willing to cede to the Federal Govt.. And they are overjoyed if those usurped powers create MORE problems for them to solve.

There should not be a penny spent on ANY product or idea or service that is already mature and exists in a competitive marketplace. We ALL agree to that. Except for the Honey Daddies who WON'T give up that power and the Flies who have become dependent on it..

 

[rightwinger]

Neither side is in favor of corporate welfare. At least not their constituents. You have to cut the SIZE and SCOPE of government so that they don't have the power to GIVE these subsidies. And that's just not a leftist ambition --- is it? Which comes first? the honey or the flies?

It's a politician thing. They TOOK the power to do those things. And liberals/leftist/socialist see NO LIMITS to what the government SHOULD be able to do..

As an encapsulation of the theme you put forth, you lost me with the "flies and honey" bit. I think there is definitely a causal relationship to be found in connection with corporate welfare (and its recipients), voters and elected officials. There is no such relationship between flies and honey; one exists independently of the other. Moreover, I don't have the first idea of whom you see as the fly or the honey, to say nothing of what role you see the third group filling.

Please clarify. I do genuinely want to understand the point you are trying to communicate. I don't know if I will or won't agree with it, but I can't know that until I understand it.

I tend to take large leaps. What I was trying to short-circuit with the flies/honey biz is the argument over whether the solution to ending corporate welfare was to remove the "honey" === equals to the power to give favors and pick or winners/losers on the part of the gov ---- OR the "flies" === which is a metaphor for the industry lobbying and "cash influence" that comes with that. Leftist/socialist/Libs never recognize that the flies would go elsewhere if there wasn't honey spilt out regularly on Capitol Hill..

Regardless -- the larger problem is that leftists know no limits to the powers that they are willing to cede to the Federal Govt.. And they are overjoyed if those usurped powers create MORE problems for them to solve.

There should not be a penny spent on ANY product or idea or service that is already mature and exists in a competitive marketplace. We ALL agree to that. Except for the Honey Daddies who WON'T give up that power and the Flies who have become dependent on it..

Give an example of powers ceded to the federal government and the resulting negative result




.

 

[320 Years of History]

Neither side is in favor of corporate welfare. At least not their constituents. You have to cut the SIZE and SCOPE of government so that they don't have the power to GIVE these subsidies. And that's just not a leftist ambition --- is it? Which comes first? the honey or the flies?

It's a politician thing. They TOOK the power to do those things. And liberals/leftist/socialist see NO LIMITS to what the government SHOULD be able to do..

As an encapsulation of the theme you put forth, you lost me with the "flies and honey" bit. I think there is definitely a causal relationship to be found in connection with corporate welfare (and its recipients), voters and elected officials. There is no such relationship between flies and honey; one exists independently of the other. Moreover, I don't have the first idea of whom you see as the fly or the honey, to say nothing of what role you see the third group filling.

Please clarify. I do genuinely want to understand the point you are trying to communicate. I don't know if I will or won't agree with it, but I can't know that until I understand it.

I tend to take large leaps. What I was trying to short-circuit with the flies/honey biz is the argument over whether the solution to ending corporate welfare was to remove the "honey" === equals to the power to give favors and pick or winners/losers on the part of the gov ---- OR the "flies" === which is a metaphor for the industry lobbying and "cash influence" that comes with that. Leftist/socialist/Libs never recognize that the flies would go elsewhere if there wasn't honey spilt out regularly on Capitol Hill..

Regardless -- the larger problem is that leftists know no limits to the powers that they are willing to cede to the Federal Govt.. And they are overjoyed if those usurped powers create MORE problems for them to solve.

There should not be a penny spent on ANY product or idea or service that is already mature and exists in a competitive marketplace. We ALL agree to that. Except for the Honey Daddies who WON'T give up that power and the Flies who have become dependent on it..

TY for the clarification. I'll give it some thought now that I understand it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Neither side is in favor of corporate welfare. At least not their constituents. You have to cut the SIZE and SCOPE of government so that they don't have the power to GIVE these subsidies. And that's just not a leftist ambition --- is it? Which comes first? the honey or the flies?

It's a politician thing. They TOOK the power to do those things. And liberals/leftist/socialist see NO LIMITS to what the government SHOULD be able to do..

As an encapsulation of the theme you put forth, you lost me with the "flies and honey" bit. I think there is definitely a causal relationship to be found in connection with corporate welfare (and its recipients), voters and elected officials. There is no such relationship between flies and honey; one exists independently of the other. Moreover, I don't have the first idea of whom you see as the fly or the honey, to say nothing of what role you see the third group filling.

Please clarify. I do genuinely want to understand the point you are trying to communicate. I don't know if I will or won't agree with it, but I can't know that until I understand it.

I tend to take large leaps. What I was trying to short-circuit with the flies/honey biz is the argument over whether the solution to ending corporate welfare was to remove the "honey" === equals to the power to give favors and pick or winners/losers on the part of the gov ---- OR the "flies" === which is a metaphor for the industry lobbying and "cash influence" that comes with that. Leftist/socialist/Libs never recognize that the flies would go elsewhere if there wasn't honey spilt out regularly on Capitol Hill..

Regardless -- the larger problem is that leftists know no limits to the powers that they are willing to cede to the Federal Govt.. And they are overjoyed if those usurped powers create MORE problems for them to solve.

There should not be a penny spent on ANY product or idea or service that is already mature and exists in a competitive marketplace. We ALL agree to that. Except for the Honey Daddies who WON'T give up that power and the Flies who have become dependent on it..

Give an example of powers ceded to the federal government and the resulting negative result

Just DID there guy.. Corporate welfare and favoritism is an aberration of commerce. Not the promoting of commerce. No reason to pick "a few" solar companies to support and promote when they already have 3 or 4 competitors. No reason to being giving $Mill to Elon Musk (a multi-billionaire) to be building trophy cars for millionaires and no reason why GE should ever have gotten $50 tax credit for every "energy efficient" dishwasher that they sell. Same deal when it comes to deciding what SIZE banks should survive or which car companies to rescue.. If you were gonna promote commerce and not pick winners/losers --- support the ENTIRE market with fundamental Research/Dev grants/credits. Don't feed the noisiest flies.

 

[flacaltenn]

Watch K street lobbyist HQs dry up and get replaced with Gov Housing after you take away that usurped power.
Not like Congress has a lot of spare time to be playing day traders in the market.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Are Liberals Their Own Worst Enemy?"

One can't expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

 

[rightwinger]

Neither side is in favor of corporate welfare. At least not their constituents. You have to cut the SIZE and SCOPE of government so that they don't have the power to GIVE these subsidies. And that's just not a leftist ambition --- is it? Which comes first? the honey or the flies?

It's a politician thing. They TOOK the power to do those things. And liberals/leftist/socialist see NO LIMITS to what the government SHOULD be able to do..

As an encapsulation of the theme you put forth, you lost me with the "flies and honey" bit. I think there is definitely a causal relationship to be found in connection with corporate welfare (and its recipients), voters and elected officials. There is no such relationship between flies and honey; one exists independently of the other. Moreover, I don't have the first idea of whom you see as the fly or the honey, to say nothing of what role you see the third group filling.

Please clarify. I do genuinely want to understand the point you are trying to communicate. I don't know if I will or won't agree with it, but I can't know that until I understand it.

I tend to take large leaps. What I was trying to short-circuit with the flies/honey biz is the argument over whether the solution to ending corporate welfare was to remove the "honey" === equals to the power to give favors and pick or winners/losers on the part of the gov ---- OR the "flies" === which is a metaphor for the industry lobbying and "cash influence" that comes with that. Leftist/socialist/Libs never recognize that the flies would go elsewhere if there wasn't honey spilt out regularly on Capitol Hill..

Regardless -- the larger problem is that leftists know no limits to the powers that they are willing to cede to the Federal Govt.. And they are overjoyed if those usurped powers create MORE problems for them to solve.

There should not be a penny spent on ANY product or idea or service that is already mature and exists in a competitive marketplace. We ALL agree to that. Except for the Honey Daddies who WON'T give up that power and the Flies who have become dependent on it..

Give an example of powers ceded to the federal government and the resulting negative result

Just DID there guy.. Corporate welfare and favoritism is an aberration of commerce. Not the promoting of commerce. No reason to pick "a few" solar companies to support and promote when they already have 3 or 4 competitors. No reason to being giving $Mill to Elon Musk (a multi-billionaire) to be building trophy cars for millionaires and no reason why GE should ever have gotten $50 tax credit for every "energy efficient" dishwasher that they sell. Same deal when it comes to deciding what SIZE banks should survive or which car companies to rescue.. If you were gonna promote commerce and not pick winners/losers --- support the ENTIRE market with fundamental Research/Dev grants/credits. Don't feed the noisiest flies.

Sorry...doesn't answer the question
Pork is still pork

You claim powers have been ceded to the government by liberals. That is not a power

 

[flacaltenn]

Neither side is in favor of corporate welfare. At least not their constituents. You have to cut the SIZE and SCOPE of government so that they don't have the power to GIVE these subsidies. And that's just not a leftist ambition --- is it? Which comes first? the honey or the flies?

It's a politician thing. They TOOK the power to do those things. And liberals/leftist/socialist see NO LIMITS to what the government SHOULD be able to do..

As an encapsulation of the theme you put forth, you lost me with the "flies and honey" bit. I think there is definitely a causal relationship to be found in connection with corporate welfare (and its recipients), voters and elected officials. There is no such relationship between flies and honey; one exists independently of the other. Moreover, I don't have the first idea of whom you see as the fly or the honey, to say nothing of what role you see the third group filling.

Please clarify. I do genuinely want to understand the point you are trying to communicate. I don't know if I will or won't agree with it, but I can't know that until I understand it.

I tend to take large leaps. What I was trying to short-circuit with the flies/honey biz is the argument over whether the solution to ending corporate welfare was to remove the "honey" === equals to the power to give favors and pick or winners/losers on the part of the gov ---- OR the "flies" === which is a metaphor for the industry lobbying and "cash influence" that comes with that. Leftist/socialist/Libs never recognize that the flies would go elsewhere if there wasn't honey spilt out regularly on Capitol Hill..

Regardless -- the larger problem is that leftists know no limits to the powers that they are willing to cede to the Federal Govt.. And they are overjoyed if those usurped powers create MORE problems for them to solve.

There should not be a penny spent on ANY product or idea or service that is already mature and exists in a competitive marketplace. We ALL agree to that. Except for the Honey Daddies who WON'T give up that power and the Flies who have become dependent on it..

Give an example of powers ceded to the federal government and the resulting negative result

Just DID there guy.. Corporate welfare and favoritism is an aberration of commerce. Not the promoting of commerce. No reason to pick "a few" solar companies to support and promote when they already have 3 or 4 competitors. No reason to being giving $Mill to Elon Musk (a multi-billionaire) to be building trophy cars for millionaires and no reason why GE should ever have gotten $50 tax credit for every "energy efficient" dishwasher that they sell. Same deal when it comes to deciding what SIZE banks should survive or which car companies to rescue.. If you were gonna promote commerce and not pick winners/losers --- support the ENTIRE market with fundamental Research/Dev grants/credits. Don't feed the noisiest flies.

Sorry...doesn't answer the question
Pork is still pork

You claim powers have been ceded to the government by liberals. That is not a power

Never claimed the problem was CREATED by leftists. I only observed that those guys are not predisposed to questioning the power and scope of Congress OR it's spending. Not a lot of fiscal conservatives on that side. And even less left that understand how free markets work.

So it's a matter of what the right calls "big government". The left assumes they are just drama queens screeching about liberty and freedom and the right to be a miser. But THIS is the fundamental argument about what govt should and shouldn't do. And why something like corporate welfare --- which probably has a bipartisian 88% disapproval rating can't get fixed.

Because the left won't sign up for ANY FORM of taking back assignments of power that Congress never should have taken.. Big government IS a problem. Because the important stuff ain't getting done and congress can not control the behemoth it's created anymore.

 

[rightwinger]

As an encapsulation of the theme you put forth, you lost me with the "flies and honey" bit. I think there is definitely a causal relationship to be found in connection with corporate welfare (and its recipients), voters and elected officials. There is no such relationship between flies and honey; one exists independently of the other. Moreover, I don't have the first idea of whom you see as the fly or the honey, to say nothing of what role you see the third group filling.

Please clarify. I do genuinely want to understand the point you are trying to communicate. I don't know if I will or won't agree with it, but I can't know that until I understand it.

I tend to take large leaps. What I was trying to short-circuit with the flies/honey biz is the argument over whether the solution to ending corporate welfare was to remove the "honey" === equals to the power to give favors and pick or winners/losers on the part of the gov ---- OR the "flies" === which is a metaphor for the industry lobbying and "cash influence" that comes with that. Leftist/socialist/Libs never recognize that the flies would go elsewhere if there wasn't honey spilt out regularly on Capitol Hill..

Regardless -- the larger problem is that leftists know no limits to the powers that they are willing to cede to the Federal Govt.. And they are overjoyed if those usurped powers create MORE problems for them to solve.

There should not be a penny spent on ANY product or idea or service that is already mature and exists in a competitive marketplace. We ALL agree to that. Except for the Honey Daddies who WON'T give up that power and the Flies who have become dependent on it..

Give an example of powers ceded to the federal government and the resulting negative result

Just DID there guy.. Corporate welfare and favoritism is an aberration of commerce. Not the promoting of commerce. No reason to pick "a few" solar companies to support and promote when they already have 3 or 4 competitors. No reason to being giving $Mill to Elon Musk (a multi-billionaire) to be building trophy cars for millionaires and no reason why GE should ever have gotten $50 tax credit for every "energy efficient" dishwasher that they sell. Same deal when it comes to deciding what SIZE banks should survive or which car companies to rescue.. If you were gonna promote commerce and not pick winners/losers --- support the ENTIRE market with fundamental Research/Dev grants/credits. Don't feed the noisiest flies.

Sorry...doesn't answer the question
Pork is still pork

You claim powers have been ceded to the government by liberals. That is not a power

Never claimed the problem was CREATED by leftists. I only observed that those guys are not predisposed to questioning the power and scope of Congress OR it's spending. Not a lot of fiscal conservatives on that side. And even less left that understand how free markets work.

So it's a matter of what the right calls "big government". The left assumes they are just drama queens screeching about liberty and freedom and the right to be a miser. But THIS is the fundamental argument about what govt should and shouldn't do. And why something like corporate welfare --- which probably has a bipartisian 88% disapproval rating can't get fixed.

Because the left won't sign up for ANY FORM of taking back assignments of power that Congress never should have taken.. Big government IS a problem. Because the important stuff ain't getting done and congress can not control the behemoth it's created anymore.

OK

What powers do you want to take back and why?

 

[320 Years of History]

"Are Liberals Their Own Worst Enemy?"

One can't expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

??? Why can't one? It's a "yes/no" question. Just answer the darn thing, if you have an answer, and show "how/why yes" or "how/why no." If you lack a direct answer, as I did, just say so and say why. Regardless of whether you consider the inquiry "loaded," your response to it doesn't have to be.

 

[Arianrhod]

What will be the result?

Seems to me the Left has had quite a bit of success over the last seven years. Maybe not as much as they'd like, but 2016 notwithstanding, it does seem like the country is moving Left.

Obviously the opposition has been pretty rabid, but that doesn't mean it's been effective.
.

All in all, liberals can be very pleased with the progress we have made on healthcare, gay rights, womens health, the environment and immigration

I fail to see how we are our own worst enemy

The way I see it, Liberals have succeeded in creating an entire class of people/businesses, who are in whole or in part dependant on government to provide for their basic needs/profitability. When this policy becomes unsustainable, it will collapse.

Look at that! Now BUSINESSES are takers. I love that shit.

How else would you describe corporate bail-outs, ethenol subsidies, solar and wind energy subsidies, ect.? If not corporate welfare then what, pray tell, is it?

How would you classify Corporations That Pay No Taxes?

 

[flacaltenn]

I tend to take large leaps. What I was trying to short-circuit with the flies/honey biz is the argument over whether the solution to ending corporate welfare was to remove the "honey" === equals to the power to give favors and pick or winners/losers on the part of the gov ---- OR the "flies" === which is a metaphor for the industry lobbying and "cash influence" that comes with that. Leftist/socialist/Libs never recognize that the flies would go elsewhere if there wasn't honey spilt out regularly on Capitol Hill..

Regardless -- the larger problem is that leftists know no limits to the powers that they are willing to cede to the Federal Govt.. And they are overjoyed if those usurped powers create MORE problems for them to solve.

There should not be a penny spent on ANY product or idea or service that is already mature and exists in a competitive marketplace. We ALL agree to that. Except for the Honey Daddies who WON'T give up that power and the Flies who have become dependent on it..

Give an example of powers ceded to the federal government and the resulting negative result

Just DID there guy.. Corporate welfare and favoritism is an aberration of commerce. Not the promoting of commerce. No reason to pick "a few" solar companies to support and promote when they already have 3 or 4 competitors. No reason to being giving $Mill to Elon Musk (a multi-billionaire) to be building trophy cars for millionaires and no reason why GE should ever have gotten $50 tax credit for every "energy efficient" dishwasher that they sell. Same deal when it comes to deciding what SIZE banks should survive or which car companies to rescue.. If you were gonna promote commerce and not pick winners/losers --- support the ENTIRE market with fundamental Research/Dev grants/credits. Don't feed the noisiest flies.

Sorry...doesn't answer the question
Pork is still pork

You claim powers have been ceded to the government by liberals. That is not a power

Never claimed the problem was CREATED by leftists. I only observed that those guys are not predisposed to questioning the power and scope of Congress OR it's spending. Not a lot of fiscal conservatives on that side. And even less left that understand how free markets work.

So it's a matter of what the right calls "big government". The left assumes they are just drama queens screeching about liberty and freedom and the right to be a miser. But THIS is the fundamental argument about what govt should and shouldn't do. And why something like corporate welfare --- which probably has a bipartisian 88% disapproval rating can't get fixed.

Because the left won't sign up for ANY FORM of taking back assignments of power that Congress never should have taken.. Big government IS a problem. Because the important stuff ain't getting done and congress can not control the behemoth it's created anymore.

OK

What powers do you want to take back and why?

Why is it what I want? You like corporate welfare? You like the Feds messing with the Internet or unleashing the world's most powerful spy agency on you? Think we need BIGGER govt -- when Congress can't get answers from ANY of the agencies in their oversight roles.??

In terms of the corporate welfare -- unfortunately for me because I HATE both parties almost equally -- you need both of the existing parties to get fiscally responsible for real. They do not have our blessing to entertain lobbies and dole out money for subsidies of all types. Just get them out of the biz of supporting ANY product or service that is in a mature market place. There is NO constitutional authority for that. Slash the Commerce Dept. Dismantle it and put the remaining pieces somewhere else.

It needs to be made clear what "promoting Commerce" means. And make certain that any action of the Congress to do such things NEVER favors a particular organization or groups of organizations.

It's a non-partisan project. But I don't expect much enthusiasm from folks on the left who don't care about a $17Trill debt. Or the size and scale of government. Fed govt ought to be concentrating on ensuring fair and accurate elections and stuff like that. PRIMARY DUTIES.. Instead we get half-hearted delayed reactive fixes.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Are Liberals Their Own Worst Enemy?"

One can't expect 'clean debate' when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

Wonder if the folks complaining about the title would consider it fine if Tea Party was substituted for Liberals?

 

[flacaltenn]

Seems to me the Left has had quite a bit of success over the last seven years. Maybe not as much as they'd like, but 2016 notwithstanding, it does seem like the country is moving Left.

Obviously the opposition has been pretty rabid, but that doesn't mean it's been effective.
.

All in all, liberals can be very pleased with the progress we have made on healthcare, gay rights, womens health, the environment and immigration

I fail to see how we are our own worst enemy

The way I see it, Liberals have succeeded in creating an entire class of people/businesses, who are in whole or in part dependant on government to provide for their basic needs/profitability. When this policy becomes unsustainable, it will collapse.

Look at that! Now BUSINESSES are takers. I love that shit.

How else would you describe corporate bail-outs, ethenol subsidies, solar and wind energy subsidies, ect.? If not corporate welfare then what, pray tell, is it?

How would you classify Corporations That Pay No Taxes?

Pretty sure he's gonna tell ya that's corporate welfare also. So do you like wind and solar subsidies? How about GE paying almost no taxes because they get (or got) $50 for every dishwasher they sold. It's to save the planet right?

 

[Arianrhod]

All in all, liberals can be very pleased with the progress we have made on healthcare, gay rights, womens health, the environment and immigration

I fail to see how we are our own worst enemy

The way I see it, Liberals have succeeded in creating an entire class of people/businesses, who are in whole or in part dependant on government to provide for their basic needs/profitability. When this policy becomes unsustainable, it will collapse.

Look at that! Now BUSINESSES are takers. I love that shit.

How else would you describe corporate bail-outs, ethenol subsidies, solar and wind energy subsidies, ect.? If not corporate welfare then what, pray tell, is it?

How would you classify Corporations That Pay No Taxes?

Pretty sure he's gonna tell ya that's corporate welfare also. So do you like wind and solar subsidies? How about GE paying almost no taxes because they get (or got) $50 for every dishwasher they sold. It's to save the planet right?

I'll wait for him to answer, or we can haggle about farm subsidies, or the multi-page thread where a slew of middle-class posters defend the Walton family for ripping them off.

 

[flacaltenn]

The way I see it, Liberals have succeeded in creating an entire class of people/businesses, who are in whole or in part dependant on government to provide for their basic needs/profitability. When this policy becomes unsustainable, it will collapse.

Look at that! Now BUSINESSES are takers. I love that shit.

How else would you describe corporate bail-outs, ethenol subsidies, solar and wind energy subsidies, ect.? If not corporate welfare then what, pray tell, is it?

How would you classify Corporations That Pay No Taxes?

Pretty sure he's gonna tell ya that's corporate welfare also. So do you like wind and solar subsidies? How about GE paying almost no taxes because they get (or got) $50 for every dishwasher they sold. It's to save the planet right?

I'll wait for him to answer, or we can haggle about farm subsidies, or the multi-page thread where a slew of middle-class posters defend the Walton family for ripping them off.

If leftists ran WalMart -- a bag of chips would $4.09.. And the pharmacy would be the most expensive in town -- not the cheapest.. And the check cashing services --- would be broke and out of business in a year.

 

[rightwinger]

Give an example of powers ceded to the federal government and the resulting negative result

Just DID there guy.. Corporate welfare and favoritism is an aberration of commerce. Not the promoting of commerce. No reason to pick "a few" solar companies to support and promote when they already have 3 or 4 competitors. No reason to being giving $Mill to Elon Musk (a multi-billionaire) to be building trophy cars for millionaires and no reason why GE should ever have gotten $50 tax credit for every "energy efficient" dishwasher that they sell. Same deal when it comes to deciding what SIZE banks should survive or which car companies to rescue.. If you were gonna promote commerce and not pick winners/losers --- support the ENTIRE market with fundamental Research/Dev grants/credits. Don't feed the noisiest flies.

Sorry...doesn't answer the question
Pork is still pork

You claim powers have been ceded to the government by liberals. That is not a power

Never claimed the problem was CREATED by leftists. I only observed that those guys are not predisposed to questioning the power and scope of Congress OR it's spending. Not a lot of fiscal conservatives on that side. And even less left that understand how free markets work.

So it's a matter of what the right calls "big government". The left assumes they are just drama queens screeching about liberty and freedom and the right to be a miser. But THIS is the fundamental argument about what govt should and shouldn't do. And why something like corporate welfare --- which probably has a bipartisian 88% disapproval rating can't get fixed.

Because the left won't sign up for ANY FORM of taking back assignments of power that Congress never should have taken.. Big government IS a problem. Because the important stuff ain't getting done and congress can not control the behemoth it's created anymore.

OK

What powers do you want to take back and why?

Why is it what I want? You like corporate welfare? You like the Feds messing with the Internet or unleashing the world's most powerful spy agency on you? Think we need BIGGER govt -- when Congress can't get answers from ANY of the agencies in their oversight roles.??

In terms of the corporate welfare -- unfortunately for me because I HATE both parties almost equally -- you need both of the existing parties to get fiscally responsible for real. They do not have our blessing to entertain lobbies and dole out money for subsidies of all types. Just get them out of the biz of supporting ANY product or service that is in a mature market place. There is NO constitutional authority for that. Slash the Commerce Dept. Dismantle it and put the remaining pieces somewhere else.

It needs to be made clear what "promoting Commerce" means. And make certain that any action of the Congress to do such things NEVER favors a particular organization or groups of organizations.

It's a non-partisan project. But I don't expect much enthusiasm from folks on the left who don't care about a $17Trill debt. Or the size and scale of government. Fed govt ought to be concentrating on ensuring fair and accurate elections and stuff like that. PRIMARY DUTIES.. Instead we get half-hearted delayed reactive fixes.

It seems you don't understand what powers of government are

Government has always had the power of taxation and deciding who qualifies for tax breaks. That is nothing new and has nothing to do with liberals
The feds messed" with the internet to prevent it from being sold to the highest bidder...I support it

 

[jwoodie]

THIS IS NOT A RANT AGAINST LIBERALS. It is a question about whether the imposition of liberal policies which conflict with established social norms inevitably breeds a political overreaction which results in an even less liberal society. This has happened throughout history, and is happening right now in many Muslim countries.

Can it happen here? There are a growing number of people who believe that our country is in grave danger not seen since the Civil War. With mounting evidence, they view the agencies of the federal government to be both corrupt and illegal organs of political suppression and intimidation. The ascendance of "anti-establishment" political candidates indicates a serious lack of faith in these institutions.

What will be the result? Will the bare faced political shenanigans of the last eight years be reversed with a vengeance? Will fire be met with even greater fire? The mood of the electorate seems to be favoring more authoritarian rule by one side or another. Will we lose either way?

I don't know if it will/can or not. I do know that whether it does has more to do with the reaction to the policies implemented than it does with the policies themselves. Were you or another to pose the same inquiry re: non-liberal policies enacted by non-liberal policy makers, I'd have the same response.

Note:
I think that using the term "imposition" casts a non-neutral tone upon what otherwise could have been a pretty good opening depiction and framing of context for this topic. "Impose" certainly makes the remark seem more "rant-like" than mere discussion. Avoiding the connotation associated with "impose," and trying to present a neutral/objective reply, is why I wrote above using "implement" and "enact."

I considered using "implementation" but that implies the application of legitimate laws and policies. Many people consider these laws and policies to be illegitimate exercises of political power (e.g., Executive Orders) which have violated the Constitutional rule of law and are against the will of the majority of the people. Within this context, I decided that "imposition" more accurately comported with the theme of my post, which is potential overreaction to perceived abuses of power.

 

[Arianrhod]

Look at that! Now BUSINESSES are takers. I love that shit.

How else would you describe corporate bail-outs, ethenol subsidies, solar and wind energy subsidies, ect.? If not corporate welfare then what, pray tell, is it?

How would you classify Corporations That Pay No Taxes?

Pretty sure he's gonna tell ya that's corporate welfare also. So do you like wind and solar subsidies? How about GE paying almost no taxes because they get (or got) $50 for every dishwasher they sold. It's to save the planet right?

I'll wait for him to answer, or we can haggle about farm subsidies, or the multi-page thread where a slew of middle-class posters defend the Walton family for ripping them off.

If leftists ran WalMart -- a bag of chips would $4.09.. And the pharmacy would be the most expensive in town -- not the cheapest.. And the check cashing services --- would be broke and out of business in a year.

What's the political persuasion of the folks who run similar chains and aren't seeing a $14.7 billion drop in value in a single week?

 

[flacaltenn]

Just DID there guy.. Corporate welfare and favoritism is an aberration of commerce. Not the promoting of commerce. No reason to pick "a few" solar companies to support and promote when they already have 3 or 4 competitors. No reason to being giving $Mill to Elon Musk (a multi-billionaire) to be building trophy cars for millionaires and no reason why GE should ever have gotten $50 tax credit for every "energy efficient" dishwasher that they sell. Same deal when it comes to deciding what SIZE banks should survive or which car companies to rescue.. If you were gonna promote commerce and not pick winners/losers --- support the ENTIRE market with fundamental Research/Dev grants/credits. Don't feed the noisiest flies.

Sorry...doesn't answer the question
Pork is still pork

You claim powers have been ceded to the government by liberals. That is not a power

Never claimed the problem was CREATED by leftists. I only observed that those guys are not predisposed to questioning the power and scope of Congress OR it's spending. Not a lot of fiscal conservatives on that side. And even less left that understand how free markets work.

So it's a matter of what the right calls "big government". The left assumes they are just drama queens screeching about liberty and freedom and the right to be a miser. But THIS is the fundamental argument about what govt should and shouldn't do. And why something like corporate welfare --- which probably has a bipartisian 88% disapproval rating can't get fixed.

Because the left won't sign up for ANY FORM of taking back assignments of power that Congress never should have taken.. Big government IS a problem. Because the important stuff ain't getting done and congress can not control the behemoth it's created anymore.

OK

What powers do you want to take back and why?

Why is it what I want? You like corporate welfare? You like the Feds messing with the Internet or unleashing the world's most powerful spy agency on you? Think we need BIGGER govt -- when Congress can't get answers from ANY of the agencies in their oversight roles.??

In terms of the corporate welfare -- unfortunately for me because I HATE both parties almost equally -- you need both of the existing parties to get fiscally responsible for real. They do not have our blessing to entertain lobbies and dole out money for subsidies of all types. Just get them out of the biz of supporting ANY product or service that is in a mature market place. There is NO constitutional authority for that. Slash the Commerce Dept. Dismantle it and put the remaining pieces somewhere else.

It needs to be made clear what "promoting Commerce" means. And make certain that any action of the Congress to do such things NEVER favors a particular organization or groups of organizations.

It's a non-partisan project. But I don't expect much enthusiasm from folks on the left who don't care about a $17Trill debt. Or the size and scale of government. Fed govt ought to be concentrating on ensuring fair and accurate elections and stuff like that. PRIMARY DUTIES.. Instead we get half-hearted delayed reactive fixes.

It seems you don't understand what powers of government are

Government has always had the power of taxation and deciding who qualifies for tax breaks. That is nothing new and has nothing to do with liberals
The feds messed" with the internet to prevent it from being sold to the highest bidder...I support it

So you believe the Commerce Clause intended that certain corporations would be treated with favoritism? And again -- the problem wasn't CREATED solely by leftists -- but they sure as hell have no interest in curtailing ANY powers of Congress to direct cash to favorites.